morally arbitrary Much *politically correct *moralizing rests on the supposed axiom that it is *morally ‘unjustified’ (or indefensible, at least; see *critical rationalism) that people be allowed the fruits of any of their contingent and undeserved advantages; whether genetic, financial, social or whatever. In other words, it is assumed that there is a moral default position of *equality and that any deviations from it require adequate defense before they can *justly be *tolerated.

However, it does not follow that because one did not deserve to receive certain advantages, that it is morally arbitrary that one be allowed to benefit from them. To epitomize: a gift to a friend that he did not deserve is, nevertheless, *rightfully his. It is morally arbitrary that this be thought in need of defense from forced redistribution to achieve equality. It is not as though equality is even a desirable ideal. And any attempts at *proactively imposing it will destroy *liberty and *welfare.

Further, if it is morally arbitrary that a *person be allowed the advantages of his greater-than-average inherited intelligence, say, then there is no reason to restrict this principle to human beings. Those conscious beings that are born as other *animals, assuming that karmic reincarnation is not to be taken seriously, are presumably even more in need of ‘just compensation’ for their relatively poor outcome in the genetic lottery. But this would clearly be absurd. And this reductio ad absurdum ought to make it even plainer that undeserved advantages do not entail that it is moral to redistribute on the basis of those advantages. On the contrary, it is a morally arbitrary whim to hold that any such thing is desirable.